PERSONS Criminally Liable for FELONIES

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996) Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was
prosecuted for the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been
found to be in possession of recently stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop at Zapote
Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial that she merely bought the same from one
named Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to
her jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of
the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to
prove that she knew or should have known that the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of
value which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No.
1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her
defense of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not
overcome the presumption of fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994).
Buying personal property puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known
or ought to know that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the
administrative procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the
dealer is unlicensed in order to escape liability.

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995) What is the difference between a fence and an
accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any similarity between them?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the
penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher,
whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower
than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from
robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the
penalty is one degree lower.

Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the
accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an
accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the
accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code
or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995) What are the elements of fencing?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The elements of fencing are: a. a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed;

26 of 86 accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item , object or
anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime; the accused knows or
should have known that said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and there is on the part of the accused, intent to gain
for himself or for another.

Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998) King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura
offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force
and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.

Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.

Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the
jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.

What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single
indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. ...

Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to
conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape
with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability
therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.

Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as fence.
Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the
participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing
that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing
Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he
received it from King and sold it.

Criminal Liability; Non-Exemption as Accessory (2004) DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of
XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial,
MCB raised the defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be
held liable as an accessory. Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal
liability of an accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who
themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime.
This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is expressly provided
in Art. 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal Liability; Principal by Direct Participation; Co-Principal by Indispensable Cooperation (2000)

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gunfiring during the New
Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before
midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at
Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their
conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor
Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the
latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious
and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced
Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his
arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot
Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos
and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When
Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead,
the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously, If
you were the Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal
by Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held
liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even
before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that criminal design by providing the
firearm.

Criminal Liability; Principal by Inducement (2002) A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done
to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to
him but 27 of 86 because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in
the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he
promised B is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a
co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the
person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not have been committed.
The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C
out of a long standing grudge.
Criminal Liability; Principal; Inducement & Participation (1994) Tata owns a three-storey building
located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to construct a new building but had no money
to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and
Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds.
Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What is their respective criminal
liability?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced Yoboy and
Yongsi, for a price or monetary consideration, to commit arson which the latter would not have
committed were it not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct participation (Art.
17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).

Destructive Arson (1994) Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila.
She wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured
the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn
her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building
resulting to its total loss. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they
collectively caused the destruction of property by means of fire under the circumstances which
exposed to danger the life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as amended by RA No. 7659).